IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Updated ESP/AH algorithm I-D

"Frankel, Sheila E." <sheila.frankel@nist.gov> Tue, 12 March 2013 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sheila.frankel@nist.gov>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F326221F8AAD for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LzZ1hHr1wuJM for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wsget2.nist.gov (wsget2.nist.gov [129.6.13.151]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9063821F86DD for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from WSXGHUB1.xchange.nist.gov (129.6.18.96) by wsget2.nist.gov (129.6.13.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:16:08 -0400
Received: from MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov ([fe80::d479:3188:aec0:cb66]) by WSXGHUB1.xchange.nist.gov ([129.6.18.96]) with mapi; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:15:44 -0400
From: "Frankel, Sheila E." <sheila.frankel@nist.gov>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>, "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:14:54 -0400
Thread-Topic: [IPsec] Updated ESP/AH algorithm I-D
Thread-Index: Ac4fQ7/HW0cA+yBGQfGrxh+saHayBQACb8o7
Message-ID: <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C4930BFB6145E8@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov>
References: <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C4930BFB6145E1@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov>, <513F4516.8080905@bbn.com> <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C4930BFB6145E5@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov>, <513F603C.1030007@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <513F603C.1030007@bbn.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Updated ESP/AH algorithm I-D
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:15:47 -0000

Steve,

I certainly didn't intend any insults, and I wouldn't characterize the wording in the RFC's as sloppy. It's very common to use these terms somewhat interchangeably. 

Sorry if my wording could be construed as a criticism. That's the last thing I'd want, considering the tremendous amount of hard work that went into the RFCs.

Regards,
Sheila
________________________________________
From: Stephen Kent [kent@bbn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:05 PM
To: ipsec@ietf.org; Frankel, Sheila E.
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Updated ESP/AH algorithm I-D

Sheila,

I understood your point. I objected to your statement that other IPsec
RFC were
sloppy in the use of security service/mechanism terminology.

Steve

> Steve,
>
> Perhaps I wasn't clear in the main thrust of my message. I'm not quibbling about terminology; I'm concerned that the I-D is lacking some vital information. The I-D discusses 2 services provided by ESP and AH: confidentiality and data origin authentication. My point was that the 2nd service includes connectionless integrity protection as well - which is not identical to data origin authentication - and therefore integrity protection should be mentioned in the I-D.
>
> Sheila
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email